“Do you believe in sharing the good news that will keep people from going to Hell, consistent with Christian beliefs?” the Texas Republican wondered.

Lynn, however, disagreed with the congressman’s “construction of what Hell is like or why one gets there.”

“So, you do not believe somebody would go to Hell if they do not believe Jesus is the way, the truth, the life?” Gohmert pressed.

The pastor argued that people would not got to Hell for believing a “set of ideas.”

“No, not a set of ideas. Either you believe as a Christian that Jesus is the way, the truth, or life or you don’t,” Gohmert shot back. “And there’s nothing wrong in our country with that — there’s no crime, there’s no shame.”

“Congressman, what I believe is not necessarily what I think ought to justify the creation of public policy for everybody,” Lynn explained. “For the 2,000 different religions that exist in this country, the 25 million non-believers. I’ve never been offended, I’ve never been ashamed to share my belief. When I spoke recently at an American Atheists conference, it was clear from the very beginning, the first sentence that I was a Christian minister.”

“So, the Christian belief as you see it is whatever you choose to think about Christ, whether or not you believe those words he said that nobody basically ‘goes to heaven except through me,’” Gohmert concluded, ignoring the point about separation of church and state.

Comments

Either you believe as a Christian that Jesus is the way, the truth, or life

You can believe it and tell everyone so, but you don’t have any idea what it means (if anything).

So “Jesus” is “the way”, eh? Does that mean we have to walk over him to get across to “heaven”? Or are we supposed to copy his behavior as described in the Gospels? Or do we all have to wait to be reborn as virgin-born children of some “god” or other? Or do we just have to believe that, when we die, “Jesus” is going to fly down from Valhalla, I mean “heaven”, and ferry us up? Or is it across now? Nobody believes that “heaven” is “up” any more, or that “hell” is “down”, but the unknown writers writing the Gospels and defining “Jesus” sure did, and they made sure their “Jesus” did, too.

So “Jesus” is “the truth.” What does this mean? Anything??? As far as I know, “truth” has to match “fact”. So “Jesus” is a fact? Is that what you’re getting at, Christians? That it’s a fact that “Jesus” is in the Gospels? Well, the later ones, I suppose, but “Jesus Christ” is not written *anywhere* in the earliest copies of the Christian scriptures. His name would only be written out centuries later. Is that what passes for “truth” with you?

And “Jesus” is “the life”. Since “Jesus” is obviously not alive in any sense that anything that’s REALLY alive is alive, can we just agree you’re stringing together a word salad here? If this “Jesus” of yours is “the life”, then define what “the life” means. And you might as well define what “alive” means, while you’re at it, as in “Jesus is alive.” Because we all know THAT’s a big fat lie!

So what do we have? Idiots railing forcefully about nonsense in the belief that the winner is whoever shouts the loudest. And yet there are some 40,000 different sects of Christianity, all insisting only THEY have it right. Why should we trust ANY of them?? Can we be done with Christianity now? It’s obviously rubbish.

Heh. Amused at that ‘way, truth, or life’ sneaking in there. Pretty sure the standard version of this had ‘and’ there…

But let’s face it, in the realm of the vapid slogan, a little variation is to be expected. Like kids singing national anthems in school, the lyrics gradually decaying to entire stanzas of mondegreens. If you’ve no idea what it means (or it’s unclear it ever meant much), hey, why not…

(/The way, the truth, and the life, huh? Well, guy, I believe you’re way silly, and the truth is you should get a life… Will this do?)

I loved the distinction the minister made between what he believes and what should be the basis of public policy. If only more people thought like this. Many people of all persuasions see no difference between the statements “I think this or that thing is right/wrong” and “It should be mandatory/prohibited.”

AQ @#6: “I can’t stand when someone asks a question and then cuts the person answering it off when they are responding. ”
.
Whoever asks the questions (the interrogator) sits in the power chair. That is why politicians, control freaks and other authoritarians are so fond of doing it, preferably from a physical level above that of the interrogee. Some politicians I have seen in action make it a general rule, particularly if the interviewer is the tiniest bit sceptical or hostile, to ask as many questions as they can in their replies.
.
Blanche @#2: Great comment.